Prefilled Syringes in Anesthesiology: A Quantitative Assessment of Economic and Organizational Outcomes
Author(s)
Lucrezia Bianca Ferrario, mecon1, FABRIZIO SCHETTINI, Sr., MEng1, Emanuela Foglia, PhD1, Carlotta Lerda, MD2, Nunzia Morgese, BSc Nursing2, Salvatore Di Gioia, MD2.
1HD LAB – Healthcare Datascience LAB – Università Carlo Cattaneo – LIUC, Castellanza, Italy, 2San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.
1HD LAB – Healthcare Datascience LAB – Università Carlo Cattaneo – LIUC, Castellanza, Italy, 2San Luigi Gonzaga Hospital, Orbassano, Italy.
OBJECTIVES: Despite international recommendations for pre-filled syringes (PFS) use, their adoption remains limited in Italian clinical settings. This study aimed to evaluate the economic and organizational impact of introducing PFS into anesthesiology practice, focusing on atropine and ephedrine.
METHODS: An economic and organizational assessment was conducted from the perspective of a hospital in Piedmont Region (Italy), over a 12-month period. Two scenarios were compared: the current practice (manual preparation of syringes) versus PFS use. A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing approach was applied, including direct medical costs (personnel time, protective equipment, consumables), fixed overheads, and the economic burden of drug waste and medication errors. The organizational impact was assessed by evaluating time savings and potential resources reallocation.
RESULTS: From an economic perspective, per-dose costs increased by 137% (manual atropine: €2.30 vs. PFS: €5.46) and 141% (manual ephedrine: €2.29 vs. PFS: €5.51), mainly due to higher acquisition and material costs. However, considering the annual volume of hospital preparations (3,600 atropine and 3,696 ephedrine syringes, with respective wastage rates of 75% and 58%), switching to PFS would result in an overall economic saving of 15% (€-2,312.65), including a drug waste reduction valued at €10,132.98. When including the costs associated with medication errors—often associated with longer patient hospital stays— potential savings could reach €76,896.50. From an organizational perspective, PFS reduced in preparation time by 89-90%, with total time savings (including administration) of 41% for atropine and 47% for ephedrine. This translated into over 6,000 minutes (100 hours) of nursing time recovered annually, to be reallocated toward higher-value clinical activities.
CONCLUSIONS: Although PFS implementation requires an initial investment, the benefits in terms of patient safety, workflow efficiency, and waste reduction generate long-term economic and organizational value, thus supporting their integration into anesthesiology practice.
METHODS: An economic and organizational assessment was conducted from the perspective of a hospital in Piedmont Region (Italy), over a 12-month period. Two scenarios were compared: the current practice (manual preparation of syringes) versus PFS use. A Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing approach was applied, including direct medical costs (personnel time, protective equipment, consumables), fixed overheads, and the economic burden of drug waste and medication errors. The organizational impact was assessed by evaluating time savings and potential resources reallocation.
RESULTS: From an economic perspective, per-dose costs increased by 137% (manual atropine: €2.30 vs. PFS: €5.46) and 141% (manual ephedrine: €2.29 vs. PFS: €5.51), mainly due to higher acquisition and material costs. However, considering the annual volume of hospital preparations (3,600 atropine and 3,696 ephedrine syringes, with respective wastage rates of 75% and 58%), switching to PFS would result in an overall economic saving of 15% (€-2,312.65), including a drug waste reduction valued at €10,132.98. When including the costs associated with medication errors—often associated with longer patient hospital stays— potential savings could reach €76,896.50. From an organizational perspective, PFS reduced in preparation time by 89-90%, with total time savings (including administration) of 41% for atropine and 47% for ephedrine. This translated into over 6,000 minutes (100 hours) of nursing time recovered annually, to be reallocated toward higher-value clinical activities.
CONCLUSIONS: Although PFS implementation requires an initial investment, the benefits in terms of patient safety, workflow efficiency, and waste reduction generate long-term economic and organizational value, thus supporting their integration into anesthesiology practice.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2025-11, ISPOR Europe 2025, Glasgow, Scotland
Value in Health, Volume 28, Issue S2
Code
HTA273
Topic
Economic Evaluation, Health Technology Assessment, Medical Technologies
Disease
No Additional Disease & Conditions/Specialized Treatment Areas